Loan System

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations indicate write operation (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds behavioral details: recipient gets full permissions, only recipient and owner can use the system while loaned, and permission is required. It does not cover all side effects (e.g., impact on existing reservations) but is transparent enough for typical use.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three well-structured sentences: first states action, second explains privileges, third sets permission context. No redundant words; all information is essential and front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (mutation with 3 parameters, output schema) and the presence of sibling tools, the description covers purpose, access control, and effect. It lacks explicit error conditions or prerequisites but is sufficient for an agent to use it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema descriptions cover all three parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds value by explaining the overall loan behavior and implying that recipient defaults to current user and comment is a reason, but does not add new per-parameter semantics beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Grant a loan for a Beaker system.' It elaborates on what the loan entails (full permissions) and distinguishes from sibling tools like reserve_system and return_loan by specifying exclusive usage and permission requirements.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool and explicitly states the required permission ('You must have permission to loan the system (typically the owner or an admin)'). However, it does not explicitly list alternatives or scenarios when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.